quote: x86-64 (also known as x64) is a 64-bit extension of IA-32, the 32-bit generation of the x86 instruction set. It supports vastly larger amounts of virtual memory and physical memory than is possible on IA-32, allowing programs to store larger amounts of data in memory. x86-64 also provides 64-bit general purpose registers and numerous other enhancements. The original specification was created by AMD, and has been implemented by AMD, Intel, VIA, and others. It is fully backwards compatible with 16-bit and 32-bit x86 code.[1](p13-14) Because the full x86 16-bit and 32-bit instruction sets remain implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties,[2] whereas existing applications that are recoded to take advantage of new features of the processor design may achieve performance improvements.

quote: As the term became common after the introduction of the 80386, it usually implies binary compatibility with the 32-bit instruction set of the 80386. This may sometimes be emphasized as x86-32[5] or x32 to distinguish it either from the original 16-bit "x86-16" or from the 64-bit x86-64. [6] Although most x86 processors used in new personal computers and servers have 64-bit capabilities, to avoid compatibility problems with older computers or systems, the term x86-64 (or x64) is often used to denote 64-bit software, with the term x86 implying only 32-bit. [7][8]

It's actually not uncommon for "x86" to refer to the entirety of x86 architechture including x64. People speak imprecisely. I'm sure the software will all be 64bit since 64bit on x86 is a little faster than 32bit software.

You really don't know what you are talking about. All you are doing is quoting from wikipedia which is trying to explain to you that this denotes software.x86 does not mean 32-bit which is clearly explained.

And I would hope that the mods ban you for such immature language and inability to comprehend.

You people are utterly retarded. You must've been born 5 minutes ago if you think x86 isn't commonly used to describe 32-bit *period* - software or hardware - just as x64 is used to refer to 64-bit. Across the board.

The depth of the ignorance of people on this site is just astounding sometimes. Pull your heads out of your a$ses and look around once in a while.

Anyone who actually deals with hardware will tell you it's incredibly common to referring to "x86" as any CPU created based on Intel's x86 family. This means x86 and x86-64. x86 is more commonly just synonymous with being the "Intel" based architecture (or at least the common one).

So maybe you should pull your head out of your a$s because you're clearly so full of yourself that you can't accept that you might be wrong every once in a while. Your arrogance is astounding.

lol, if only you could hear yourself talk. it always amazes me how people who are dumb and THINK theyre smart try to give themselves so much credit.

Hate to break this to you, but you're way overconfident in your analyses and you also have a severe anger issue, you may want to try therapy.

I don't have to deal with anything because I and the other dozen people posting against you are correct. Perhaps it is you who needs to accept facts and deal with it. You've been in the computer industry longer than I've been alive and you aren't that good at it.

I actually was thinking about how much of a know it all he thinks he is, also it's quite amusing he acts like a total douche when I posted what I did, then posts the same shit with what basically says the same thing I did...

I have more expertise about computer hardware in my left pinky than either of you children will ever learn.

The insistence of toddlers that long-established norms like x86 vs. x64 to denote 32-bit vs. 64-bit somehow never existed does nothing but underscore the fact that you've not actually been involved in this industry...or at least, not since you graduated from kindergarten a few days ago.

It's an indisbutable fact that the terms are exceedingly commonly used to differentiate between the entirety of either the 32-bit or 64-bit platforms. CPUs and software.

Two seconds on Google would verify that - if you children could be bothered to learn WTF you're talking about before you spout off.

quote: illiteratehack writes "10 years ago AMD released its first Opteron processor, the first 64-bit x86 processor . The firm's 64-bit 'extensions' allowed the chip to run existing 32-bit x86 code in a bid to avoid the problems faced by Intel's Itanium processor. However AMD suffered from a lack of native 64-bit software support, with Microsoft's Windows XP 64-bit edition severely hampering its adoption in the workstation market." But it worked out in the end.

So on and so forth. It's clear that normal people normally use x86 and x64 to differentiate between 32-bit and 64-bit.

Period.

It's over. The snippet you pasted up there says nothing to dispute that fact. You have one person acknowledging that AMD incorporated 64-bit extensions into the x86 framework, creating what formally was referred to as x86-64...but continuing forth was differentiated from traditional x86 platform stuff by stating either x86 or x64.

Period.

Not to mention that it's rather ironic that you quote someone who calls themself "illiterate hack."

OK. Point of interest...maybe this actually is more of a "generational thing."

Informal poll of a dozen or so IT types that were milling around the IBM office where I happened to be working with an old colleague...

There were only a couple younger guys in the office - like, in their 20s. Everyone in their 30s and over stated that they intuitively think of x86 as indicative of 32-bit, and normally would use x64 to refer to 64-bit stuff - hardware or software.

The 2 guys in their 20s said they never use "x64" and just refer to any such hardware or software intended to be used on a Windows platform as "x86."

At which point the rest of us told them to stay off our lawns.

I think it probably has to do with them not really "living" through the transition of 64-bit extensions into the platform. Neither of them really have any recognition of Itanium either. We had to explain to them what the hell that even was, and why it ultimately failed. Well...they understood why it ultimately failed, once we described it to them...it's just kind of amazing that they didn't know.

No x86 hardware is 32-bit anymore. What are all these 32-bit parts that need their own nomenclature? "x64" is a software term. Microsoft uses it to distinguish between their 32- and 64-bit software. Even your links say that.

quote: The insistence of toddlers that long-established norms like x86 vs. x64 to denote 32-bit vs. 64-bit somehow never existed

Another prime example of your delusion, since nobody ever said that.

What you ARE wrong about is that x86 is an uncommon term used to describe any CPU from the x86 family, 32 OR 64 bit. Nobody claimed the term x64 doesn't exist or that it cannot be used to refer to a 64-bit x86-64 CPU.